Posted on 01/13/2016 9:08:35 AM PST by reegs
After yesterday's article, "Cruz Makes it Official - The Race is ON!!!" I believe there are more than just a few out there who need a civics lesson.
Ted Cruz, as a matter of LAW and U.S. Codes...IS indeed qualified AND eligible to run for the office of president.
The Constitution, clearly states that to serve as president, one must be 35 years of age, one must have resided in the United States for at least 14 years and that one must be a Natural Born Citizen. Just as clearly, the Constitution never defines Natural Born Citizen nor do any of our founding documents but...later laws and codes DO.
The Supreme Court, which has NEVER entertained a case based on NBC and therefore, never issued any DECISION regarding NBC has, for a very long time, held that a Natural Born Citizen or...NBC...is one who is a Citizen at Birth or...CaB.
Further...the SCOTUS has long held that NBC includes those born in the United States or abroad to parents of a U.S. citizen.
Now don't go all plural on me here as I will explain this.
British Common Law held that children, whether born on British soil or abroad were subjects of the crown if their parents were subjects of the crown and our founders and cru 2framers certainly recognized this.
The First Congress stated as a matter of law via The Naturalization Act of 1790 "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
Yes...I know that Ted Cruz's father was not a U.S. citizen but...this is not the end of the line in our civics lesson. Far from it in fact. The Naturalization Act of 1790 also included children whose MOTHERS were U.S. citizens so long as the FATHER had, at least, been a RESIDENT of the United States...so as not to follow British patriarchy standards used for the purpose of the monarchy.
Later, congress would strike the differentiation so that any child, born in the U.S. or abroad, with the residency requirement intact and A parent being a U.S. citizen would be legally...a Natural Born Citizen.
cru 3This is backed up by the Nationality Act of 1940 which clearly states: "In the absence of such legitimation or adjudication , the child, whether born before or after the effective date of this Act, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of the child's birth , and had previously resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, shall be held to have acquired at birth her nationality status."
The Nationality Act of 1940 also shows that those born either within the United States or outside the United States (the latter being of note to Ted Cruz) to at least one parent (at least ONE parent) who was a United States citizen at the time of that child's birth allows the conveying of that citizen parent's United States citizenship to the child.
And as I stated yesterday..."While the Act of 1940 has been amended several times...the particular law in effect between 1952 and 1986 which covers Ted Cruz's birth in 1970 shows that a child born either inside or outside the United States must have a (that would be "A" and not two) citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN."
Congratulations Mrs. Cruz...you are the proud mother of a U.S. Natural Born Citizen baby boy.
But wait...there's more...
I refer you to §1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
You can read it by CLICKING HERE.
So...congress, backed by long-standing recognition of the United States Supreme Court has held that being a Citizen at Birth is one and the same as being a Natural Born Citizen and since that recognition has also been held by the Harvard Law Review as well as cru 6Constitutional scholars and numerous law professors as well as valid U.S. laws and Codes...
Ted Cruz, because his mother, meeting every requirement, conveyed HER citizenship on her son Ted...at birth...and every law on the books both then and today along with existing U.S. code IS...INDEED...ELIGIBLE to run for and hold the office of President of the United States of America.
The fact that Ted Cruz was born in Canada has absolutely NO legal bearing on this whatsoever. None. Zilch. ZERO. His birth certificate is a legal document showing the time and location of his birth but does NOTHING to establish his citizenship in any way.
U.S. laws and U.S. code...some of it going all the way back to the founders and framers who served in the First Congress of the United States makes this VERY clear. And for those who continue to scream "CONSTITUTION...THE CONSTITUTION CLEARLY SAYS"...please remember THIS part of it..."This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land..."
It may not be what some folks want to hear...it may not be what they want to know or admit but...while you may not LIKE the laws...you must ABIDE by the laws. Support whocru 7 you like but...Ted Cruz's eligibility is a matter of U.S. LAW and U.S. CODES...not the stuff of false libertarian or liberal talking points.
During yesterday's little nonsense firestorm, I implored those citing the "CRUZ AIN'T ELIGIBLE" nonsense to provide links to ANY U.S. laws or codes that would back them up.
None could...simply because no such laws or codes exist. All they did was repeat the same false narrative over and over again and, they continued to cite SCOTUS cases that had not one single thing to do with NBC at all...again...because no such case has ever been heard by the Supreme Court.
Here's just one more little but important tidbit...
Since Cruz's father had been a resident of the United States...Ted would have, by the cru 8Naturalization Act of 1790...been considered a Natural Born Citizen in accordance to the words of the Constitution and thus eligible to run for and hold the office he currently seeks. And by the way... One last thing in answer to all those who desperately and falsely try to compare Cruz to Obama...because they consider Cruz a threat to their one and only candidate of choice...the exact same laws and codes that make Cruz eligible...make Obama INELIGIBLE because Obama's mother did NOT meet the requirements outlined here.
Thus ends our civics lesson.
I offer Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled "An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," was passed in 1790 ...
And we have yet ANOTHER article that refuses to acknowledge James Madison repealed 1790 and took the clause out.
In politics If you have a perceived problem issue the rule is to get it out early and often. That way by election time it is an old issue. We knew if Cruz was the Republican Nominee it would be brought up in the general election by the Democratic PAC’s. Now Cruz can reply that it is an old issue and never had legs to stand on. Thank you Mr. Trump. A coordination between campaigns ...........perhaps
“While the Act of 1940 has been amended several times...the particular law in effect between 1952 and 1986 which covers Ted Cruz’s birth in 1970 shows that a child born either inside or outside the United States must have a (that would be “A” and not two) citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”
The Nationality Act of 1940, Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and subsequent amendments to 1970 do not say: “in order to be considered a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”
Someone appears to be disseminating a forgery to mislead.
I wouldn’t want to bet the farm on how Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan, Kennedy, Ginsberg, and Roberts would decide this one.
A coordination? Maybe...I want this to be resolved ASAP. I do not want it to be an issue for a president elect Cruz. What happens then? It’s settled by the courts? And for some he will always have that ?? next to his name, remember W? And in the interim who is president? The vice president elect? Or does the king retain his crown?
Too many questions!!
But the Establishment and its candidates need to knock Cruz out because he’s the one who frightens them most. So the Establishment set up this bogus issue and found the perfect person to deliver their message.
Would it have been Constitutional for Congress to use its power of controlling naturalization to have denied U.S. citizenship to Ted Cruz?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.